For projects needing broad freedom regarding modification dissemination, consider employing the stipulations outlined in the Berkeley Software Distribution grant. It allows developers to repurpose your code within proprietary software, a key differentiation from more restrictive instruments such as the GPL. This choice could widen adoption but relinquishes control over future iterations. The text below clarifies these aspects.
Its allowance for code incorporation into closed-source applications makes it an attractive option for commercial ventures. The obligations placed on those who employ code under this agreement are few: retain the original copyright notice attribution in all derivative work. Note, however, that while offering great flexibility, the absence of a copyleft clause means future iterations need not adhere to the same terms.
Selecting this agreement involves weighing the advantages of increased code adoption alongside a potential loss of influence over subsequent adaptations. Ensure you are informed about implications regarding distribution rights, especially considering potential modifications distribution. Carefully assess whether these provisions align with your project’s goals before implementation.
Why Opt for a Permissive Software Agreement?
Select a permissive software arrangement, such as the one originating from Berkeley, if maximal freedom for downstream consumers is paramount. This choice prioritizes the adoption of your codebase over strict control of its evolution.
Scenarios Favoring This Approach
Employ such a compact grant of rights when:
- You aim for widespread adoption, including proprietary settings. A liberal decree encourages integration into closed-source products without demanding reciprocal source distribution.
- You are building fundamental infrastructure components. The decreased contractual burden facilitates incorporation into a broader spectrum of projects.
- Your organization lacks resources for rigorous compliance enforcement. A shorter, less complex statement reduces the risk of unintentional breaches by downstream receivers.
Weighing the Trade-offs
Remember that this style of decree offers minimal protection against the incorporation of your work into closed-source projects. Contributors might see their creations appropriated without any obligation for reciprocal sharing. Carefully weigh this factor against the anticipated advantages in your specific circumstances.
Consider the size of your community before deciding on this model. Smaller groups might benefit from stronger reciprocal commitments to ensure continued communal benefit.
Can I Modify BSD-Attributed Code?
Yes, you can freely alter code governed by the standard acknowledgement-giving software distribution terms. The freedom to modify is a core tenet of this type of permission notice.
Obligations After Modification
After modification, redistribution necessitates retaining the original copyright notice, list of conditions, disclaimer. Adding your own copyright notice for the modifications is common practice.
Redistribution Guidelines
Modified versions can be redistributed under different terms, including proprietary ones. You are not mandated to release alterations under the same grant of rights. However, the original attributions must be preserved.
Attribution Requirements: What Must I Include?
You must retain the original copyright notice, list of conditions, disclaimer, without modification, in source code forms of the redistributed software.
For binary distributions, include the copyright notice, list of conditions, the disclaimer, within the documentation, or other materials provided with the distribution.
Do not misrepresent the authorship of the original software. Specifically, your modifications should be noted clearly. State that you changed the software.
Do not use the name of the copyright holder or contributors to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Compliance demands the preservation of the original copyright notice when incorporating the software into your project. This safeguards the original author’s recognition.
Failure to meet these attribution obligations can result in legal ramifications. Adhering to these rules guarantees proper credit is provided.
Verify the exact wording of the copyright notice, stipulations, denial of responsibility, as stipulations vary. The text provided within the originating code serves as authoritative.
Selling Software with Code Released Under the Original UC Terms: Allowed?
Yes, selling software incorporating code released under permissive UC distribution terms is generally permitted. The core tenet of this allowance stems from the minimal encumbrances placed on downstream modifications. The rights conveyed permit commercial exploitation without reciprocal obligations to open-source derived modifications.
Key Aspects of Commercialization
When selling software that includes such code, adhere meticulously to the attribution requirement. This usually involves retaining the original copyright notice and the disclaimers within your software’s documentation, about section, or a separate file, such as a “NOTICE” or “LEGAL” text file.
Practical Advice for Compliance
Document the provenance of the incorporated code. Create a bill of materials listing each component with its original distribution terms. Audit your codebase to verify that every line attributed to the permissive terms actually originates from that origin. Supply clear instructions to users on how they can locate these attributions inside your commercial offering. Failure to maintain proper attribution could result in legal challenges; thus, precise documentation is paramount.
The Berkeley Software Distribution terms Compared to Alternative Open Source Authorizations: Core Divergences
Select a permissive authorization, like the Berkeley Software Distribution granting, when seeking maximum flexibility in downstream software adoption. The Apache 2.0 terms provide patent protection, unlike certain stipulations. Conversely, the GNU General Public Stipulation (GPL) demands that derivative works be distributed under the same stipulations, a requirement absent in permissive authorizations.
Compatibility Implications
Combining code under differing authorisations needs careful consideration. Code under GPL is generally incompatible with inclusion into software solely authorised under Apache 2.0 or the Berkeley Software Distribution granting, due to GPL’s copyleft provision. MIT’s terms, akin to the Berkeley Software Distribution’s, are highly compatible with most other forms.
Authorization Attributes at a Glance
| Attribute | Berkeley Software Distribution Granting | MIT Granting | Apache 2.0 Granting | GNU General Public Stipulation (GPL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Copyleft | No | No | No | Yes |
| Patent Grant | No | No | Yes | No |
| Liability Disclaimer | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Requirement to Include Original Text | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Choosing an Authorization
For projects prioritizing maximal reuse even in proprietary contexts, the Berkeley Software Distribution terms (or similar permissive forms like MIT’s) are appropriate. If robust patent defence is desired, Apache 2.0 is superior. If guaranteeing open-source status for all derived works is central, GPL is needed.
Q&A:
I’m developing a closed-source application that I’d like to use some BSD-licensed code in. Does the BSD license force me to release my application’s source code?
No, the BSD license is very permissive. It allows you to use, modify, and distribute BSD-licensed code within closed-source applications without needing to release your own source code. The main requirement is to include the original BSD license notice in your application’s documentation or distribution materials, attributing the original authors. This acknowledgment is the price of admission, allowing you significant freedom with the incorporated code.
What are the main differences between the 2-clause BSD license and the 3-clause BSD license?
The primary distinction lies in an advertising clause present in the 3-clause version that is absent in the 2-clause one. The 3-clause license includes a provision prohibiting the use of the original author’s or licensor’s name to endorse or promote products derived from the software without specific prior written permission. The 2-clause variant omits this restriction, offering a slightly simpler and less restrictive framework.
If I modify BSD-licensed code, do I own the copyright to my changes, or do I have to transfer it back to the original author?
You retain the copyright to your modifications. The BSD license doesn’t require you to transfer ownership of your changes back to the original author. However, your modifications are still subject to the original BSD license; thus, others can still use, modify, and redistribute them according to the license terms, including the requirement to retain the original copyright notice and license text.
I want to contribute to a BSD-licensed project. Are there any specific things I should keep in mind regarding licensing when submitting my code?
Yes, clarity is paramount. Make sure your contribution includes the original BSD license notice along with your own copyright notice for the parts you’ve added or modified. It’s also good practice to state clearly that your contribution is licensed under the BSD license. This ensures everyone is aware of the license governing your code and prevents any ambiguity later. Communicating this information directly with the project maintainers helps smooth the process.
How does the BSD license compare to other permissive licenses like the MIT license? Are there situations where one would be preferable to the other?
The BSD and MIT licenses are very similar; both are permissive and grant users broad freedoms. The main variation is historical. Some find the BSD license a little more verbose. Preference often depends on specific project needs or organizational policy. If your organization has a policy favoring certain license structures, that will impact selection. Or, if you favor conciseness, the MIT license might appeal to you.
If I modify code licensed under the BSD License, am I required to make my changes open source?
No, the BSD License is permissive. It allows you to modify and redistribute the code, either in source or binary form, without being obligated to release your modifications under the same license or any open-source license at all. You can incorporate the BSD-licensed code into proprietary software without having to disclose your additions or the source code of your closed-source application.
I want to use a library with a BSD license in my commercial product. Are there any specific things I need to be aware of to comply with the terms of the license?
Yes, there are a couple of points to keep in mind. The primary requirement is to include the original BSD license notice in your distribution (either in the source code, if you’re distributing source, or in the documentation for a binary distribution). This notice typically includes the copyright holder’s name and the disclaimer of warranty. This protects the original author by making it clear that they are not responsible for how you use their code. Also, you cannot use the name of the copyright holder or contributors to endorse or promote your product without specific written permission. Failing to include the copyright notice or inappropriately using the copyright holder’s name would be a violation of the license.
